God exists outside of time?

[ElijahW]

Good grief, I provided my definition back in post 207.
God: A character in a book. Many books.

As I have already said, that isn’t a definition but a representation that you are defining. It would be like defining an “apple” as a prop in a book that gets shot off people’s head or an item in paintings. Yes an “apple” is a prop in stories and is in paintings but that isn’t the definition of an “apple” but it has a real world definition as well that actually defines it. Do you understand now why your definition of “God” isn’t a definition at all but instead pointing out one of the many ways that “God” is presented? These presentations can be similar but coming from different understandings of God who are making different points with their presentation. The understanding of God is the definition, not the presentation.

If you think the presentation in books is how the writers understand God then please clarify. If not then please provide what understanding of God you think the early Christians were working with since you don’t think they were working with a panentheistic understanding like Justin put forward.

I am serious. If you have some other testable attributes that you can assign to God, now would be the time.

The only attribute in discussion is untestable.

As for your response, you are repeating yourself.
God, as the cause of the universe?
Have we established that the universe had a beginning?

Have we heard any reason to think that the universe being around an infinite of time is possible?

Have we established that the universe required a cause?

Do we have any reason to believe that cause and effect doesn’t go back to the initial cause?

(this one is yours)
If you want to argue for a god always existing all you need to do is make an argument for how that is possible. It’s easy to say that it always existed but it’s another thing to explain how anything can be around for an infinite amount of years.

That is your job to do with the universe; not mine to do with the concept of God. No one is arguing that God has been around an infinite amount of years, just since the beginning. It’s your job to argue that the universe has been around an infinite amount of years and never needed an initial cause for us to contemplate about.

And God as "the cause of the universe" sounds kinda boring. I mean, what has it done for us lately?

The same thing it did initially because it is constant.

 

[Davian]

As I have already said, that isn’t a definition but a representation that you are defining. It would be like defining an “apple” as a prop in a book that gets shot off people’s head or an item in paintings. Yes an “apple” is a prop in stories and is in paintings but that isn’t the definition of an “apple” but it has a real world definition as well that actually defines it. Do you understand now why your definition of “God” isn’t a definition at all but instead pointing out one of the many ways that “God” is presented? These presentations can be similar but coming from different understandings of God who are making different points with their presentation. The understanding of God is the definition, not the presentation.

An apple is a known thing. Even if we were talking about an apple named George, we can agree on what an apple is.

You are talking about a god named God.

I ask: What is a god?

If you think the presentation in books is how the writers understand God then please clarify. If not then please provide what understanding of God you think the early Christians were working with since you don’t think they were working with a panentheistic understanding like Justin put forward.

I do not disagree that they may have been working with a panentheistic understanding of God, but if you read the bible, it would appear that their God appeared in their world and did stuff. Except those parts of the bible that are allegorical. YMMV.

The only attribute in discussion is untestable.

Then provide some testable ones.

Have we heard any reason to think that the universe being around an infinite of time is possible?

Do we have any reason to believe that cause and effect doesn’t go back to the initial cause?
That is your job to do with the universe; not mine to do with the concept of God.

YouTube - ‪'A Universe From Nothing' by Lawrence Krauss, AAI 2009‬‏

No one is arguing that God has been around an infinite amount of years, just since the beginning.

And what would be the difference?

Why does God not require a cause? Because it is God! Of course.

It’s your job to argue that the universe has been around an infinite amount of years and never needed an initial cause for us to contemplate about.

See above video @ 32min30sec

The same thing it did initially because it is constant.

You lost me there. Is this the God of the bible we are talking about?

 

[FreeinChrist]

MOD HAT

This thread has had a small clean up. If your post is removed, it is because it was in violation of the rules or responding to one that was.

As a reminder, the site rules include this rule:

Blasphemy
You will not insult or mock Christianity or any part of the Trinity-Father(God), Son(Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. Honest debate about the nature of God and Christianity is allowed, but derogatory remarks will be promptly removed.



​

 

[ElijahW]

See above video @ 32min30sec

Thank you for the video. It is the opposite of what I was asking from you and abuses some word definitions but at least we have someplace to move the conversation from.

The reason it is the opposite of what I was asking for is that it is arguing the points for a beginning to the universe. He’s not talking about a universe that goes back infinitely, which is what you need to be arguing for, if you don’t believe in the universe having a first cause. Maybe he argues for an infinite universe in another video when he explains the nature of “Nothing” since it doesn’t mean nothing and maybe why he is calling it “Empty space” when he has activity going on in it.

I’m not sure if you watched the whole video but “Nothing” is really a “boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles.” A “Brew” that he doesn’t explain how long has been around, or how big, or if he is describing something that is incorporeal or like an aether. Either way if you are talking about the beginning of the universe and there is something already there, then you are not at the beginning. It doesn’t matter if you call it “Nothing” or say it is empty.

An apple is a known thing. Even if we were talking about an apple named George, we can agree on what an apple is.

Why can’t we agree on what the word “god” means? Why are you offering up how the concept gets presented, instead of a definition we can agree on? Even if you don’t agree that the concept is reasonable; why is it so difficult for you to provide a simple definition? What happened to the link you said had a definition of “god” that you thought was ok?

You are talking about a god named God.

I’m going to stop capitalizing the word “god” since that seems to be causing some confusion between us. Maybe I should just change “god” to “x” to help you with some of the assumptions around the word “god” you have going on.
As I said earlier, the reason “god” was capitalized is because we are talking about a proper noun… because it one of a kind.

I ask: What is a god?

You are supposed to be answering what your definition of “god” is. I already have repeatedly, while you keep dodging.

I do not disagree that they may have been working with a panentheistic understanding of God, but if you read the bible, it would appear that their God appeared in their world and did stuff. Except those parts of the bible that are allegorical. YMMV.

I’m unsure of what you are talking about. Are you talking about Jesus embodying the Logos or Old Testament stories?

Then provide some testable ones.

Like what? Do you have any examples of an attribute of “god” that is testable? What kind of tests do you have in mind, that you think could prove or disprove a “god” of any understanding of “god”? Or are you already aware there aren’t any tests and this is just part of your shtick?

And what would be the difference?

One concept says that “god” has been around for an infinite amount of time and the other says finite.

Why does God not require a cause? Because it is God! Of course.

You got it, unless that is sarcasm. By the definition it doesn’t have a cause because it is the initial cause.

You lost me there. Is this the God of the bible we are talking about?

The Christian understanding of “god” at the time the NT was written was constant. If they were working with a constant understanding of “god” when they wrote the Torah is debatable but the early Christians writers were decidedly on the side of interpreting the OT in light of reason and Greek thought, over literalism.

The Marcion ordeal was around him taking the OT literal and saying that the writers were believers in a false understanding of “god”. The catholic side went with giving the OT writers the benefit of the doubt, saying that is a misunderstanding of literalism and that you needed to interpret it allegorically.

 

[Davian]

Thank you for the video. It is the opposite of what I was asking from you and abuses some word definitions but at least we have someplace to move the conversation from.

The reason it is the opposite of what I was asking for is that it is arguing the points for a beginning to the universe. He’s not talking about a universe that goes back infinitely, which is what you need to be arguing for, if you don’t believe in the universe having a first cause. Maybe he argues for an infinite universe in another video when he explains the nature of “Nothing” since it doesn’t mean nothing and maybe why he is calling it “Empty space” when he has activity going on in it.

I’m not sure if you watched the whole video but “Nothing” is really a “boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles.” A “Brew” that he doesn’t explain how long has been around, or how big, or if he is describing something that is incorporeal or like an aether. Either way if you are talking about the beginning of the universe and there is something already there, then you are not at the beginning. It doesn’t matter if you call it “Nothing” or say it is empty.

If current space-time began with the 'big bang', I don't think we have the language to describe what happened or existed 'before' it.

I’m going to stop capitalizing the word “god” since that seems to be causing some confusion between us. Maybe I should just change “god” to “x” to help you with some of the assumptions around the word “god” you have going on.
As I said earlier, the reason “god” was capitalized is because we are talking about a proper noun… because it one of a kind.

If you have trouble with capitalization, why do you not use the formal name of the god that you are positing, such as YHWH, or Yahweh (if that is the god we are talking about).

Why can’t we agree on what the word “god” means? Why are you offering up how the concept gets presented, instead of a definition we can agree on? Even if you don’t agree that the concept is reasonable; why is it so difficult for you to provide a simple definition? What happened to the link you said had a definition of “god” that you thought was ok?

It is a definition of "God", not "god" - or perhaps we should use the word deity. Link. I note that Wiki doesn't say that God actually exists.

You are supposed to be answering what your definition of “god” is. I already have repeatedly, while you keep dodging.

You have only just realized that capitalization makes a difference.

What part of "ignostic" do you not get? I ask, what is a god/deity? Are they real? how do we know this? How can we demonstrate that they are real?

I’m unsure of what you are talking about. Are you talking about Jesus embodying the Logos or Old Testament stories?

At this point, they are just stories.

Like what? Do you have any examples of an attribute of “god” that is testable? What kind of tests do you have in mind, that you think could prove or disprove a “god” of any understanding of “god”? Or are you already aware there aren’t any tests and this is just part of your shtick?

I haven't seen any yet, but I was trying to keep an open mind about it. Maybe you had something new. Are you saying that there aren't any tests for a god? Then how can we tell if they are real?

I am taking the neutral position. I don't need to prove or disprove anything. I have heard of some theists that avoid defining their gods so as to avoid having its existence disproven.

If I don't know what a god - I mean deity - really is, how would I come up with a test for one?

One concept says that “god” has been around for an infinite amount of time and the other says finite.

You got it, unless that is sarcasm. By the definition it doesn’t have a cause because it is the initial cause.

Do you mean "God"? And you claiming that it is the initial cause of the universe. And just exempted it from needing a cause itself. What if the universe didn't require a cause? My point is that you first need to establish that the universe required a cause, then you can use it to support your argument for the existence of a god. You are doing it wrong.

The Christian understanding of “god” at the time the NT was written was constant. If they were working with a constant understanding of “god” when they wrote the Torah is debatable but the early Christians writers were decidedly on the side of interpreting the OT in light of reason and Greek thought, over literalism.

I thought you understood the importance of capitalization?

The Marcion ordeal was around him taking the OT literal and saying that the writers were believers in a false understanding of “god”. The catholic side went with giving the OT writers the benefit of the doubt, saying that is a misunderstanding of literalism and that you needed to interpret it allegorically.

Why the need to interpret it allegorically? Why not take it literally? (ok, this one is sarcasm)

 

[ElijahW]

If current space-time began with the 'big bang', I don't think we have the language to describe what happened or existed 'before' it.

Why do you think that? What is the nature of language and the beginning of the universe that makes them incompatible? And let me get this straight; you think that language can’t describe the beginning but you want proof of it to believe that there was one? How does that work out?

Regardless, you do recognize that the video you provided wasn’t arguing your point, nor was it about the actual beginning of the universe, correct?

If you have trouble with capitalization, why do you not use the formal name of the god that you are positing, such as YHWH, or Yahweh (if that is the god we are talking about).

OK, let’s just try X since “god” didn’t help any. You should realize that “X” is being used to represent something and not to take anything from it other than that. Hopefully we won’t have to worry about the confusion with capitalizing X or not capitalizing x. Just remember that when I use the letter X I mean the word “god”. A word that is generally capitalized since it is singular and has many many different names, used by cultures, whose people had a variety of understandings for a single name. Just like today when someone says X you have to ask what they mean by that and usually they can provide a simple definition so you know which understanding the person is working with unless like the case is now you are talking with someone one who is trying to dodge defining X.

It is a definition of "God", not "god" - or perhaps we should use the word deity. Link. I note that Wiki doesn't say that God actually exists.

It is the concept of X that you are working with that is what we are trying to get at. What understanding of X do you assume that the Christians were working with? I put forward evidence of panentheism as defined by Justin and you keep talking about the Bible but aren’t pointing out where you think another understanding should be considered. I have no idea what you consider the Christian understanding of X, if you don’t think it is panentheism as Justin presented.

What part of "ignostic" do you not get? I ask, what is a god/deity? Are they real? how do we know this? How can we demonstrate that they are real?

It doesn’t mean anything to me. You are the first person that I know of that has used that label on themselves.

As I said before, we go with the option of a beginning because the alternatives are unreasonable. There is no proof forthcoming so if you follow what wiki tells you your labeling means, then the question of his existence is meaningless. Which means it is meaningless for you to question panentheistic or any understanding of X that is constant/doesn’t provide physical evidence.

At this point, they are just stories.

I’m not asking you if you think they are stories. I’m asking you where you think that another understanding of X is necessary other than panentheism. Is it because you are taking the stories in the OT literal or because you don’t understand anything about Jesus personifying the Logos? Why do you feel it is necessary to employ an understanding of X other than the one provided by Justin?

I haven't seen any yet, but I was trying to keep an open mind about it. Maybe you had something new. Are you saying that there aren't any tests for a god? Then how can we tell if they are real
I am taking the neutral position. I don't need to prove or disprove anything. I have heard of some theists that avoid defining their gods so as to avoid having its existence disproven.

If I don't know what a god - I mean deity - really is, how would I come up with a test for one? ?

Test for it? Something, for some reason, we can’t come up with language for? Think of all the difficulty there is going on in proving dark matter and that is something that is in theory in flux. Imagine if it was truly constant; how would you test for it? As the video pointed out Einstein was wrong about proving the curve of space by matter, so it’s possible there could be a test in the future but it is hard to imagine that being the case.

Do you mean "God"? And you claiming that it is the initial cause of the universe. And just exempted it from needing a cause itself. What if the universe didn't require a cause? My point is that you first need to establish that the universe required a cause, then you can use it to support your argument for the existence of a god. You are doing it wrong.

What does it mean for a universe to not require a first cause? Does it mean that the universe goes back infinitely or somehow breaks the chain of cause and effect back to the beginning in some unusual way that I can’t imagine?

I thought you understood the importance of capitalization?

Does this mean you do or don’t recognize that the definition that Justin provided was the understanding of X that the early Christian writers were working with?

Why the need to interpret it allegorically? Why not take it literally? (ok, this one is sarcasm)

You can joke but I’ve never met an atheist/skeptic who didn’t have a completely absurd understanding of X that comes from taking the Bible literally.

 

[Davian]

Why do you think that? What is the nature of language and the beginning of the universe that makes them incompatible? And let me get this straight; you think that language can’t describe the beginning but you want proof of it to believe that there was one? How does that work out?

I said before the beginning of time. What words do you use to describe when when there is no time?

Regardless, you do recognize that the video you provided wasn’t arguing your point, nor was it about the actual beginning of the universe, correct?

Depends if you are working with my previous universe/cosmos delineations. It doesn't matter at this point.

OK, let’s just try X since “god” didn’t help any. You should realize that “X” is being used to represent something and not to take anything from it other than that. Hopefully we won’t have to worry about the confusion with capitalizing X or not capitalizing x. Just remember that when I use the letter X I mean the word “god”. A word that is generally capitalized since it is singular and has many many different names, used by cultures, whose people had a variety of understandings for a single name. Just like today when someone says X you have to ask what they mean by that and usually they can provide a simple definition so you know which understanding the person is working with unless like the case is now you are talking with someone one who is trying to dodge defining X.
It is the concept of X that you are working with that is what we are trying to get at. What understanding of X do you assume that the Christians were working with? I put forward evidence of panentheism as defined by Justin and you keep talking about the Bible but aren’t pointing out where you think another understanding should be considered. I have no idea what you consider the Christian understanding of X, if you don’t think it is panentheism as Justin presented.

It appears to me that panentheism presumes the existence of a deity.

It doesn’t mean anything to me. You are the first person that I know of that has used that label on themselves.

Then do your homework.

Wiki

As I said before, we go with the option of a beginning because the alternatives are unreasonable. There is no proof forthcoming so if you follow what wiki tells you your labeling means, then the question of his existence is meaningless. Which means it is meaningless for you to question panentheistic or any understanding of X that is constant/doesn’t provide physical evidence.

Then why not dismiss this deity as "nonexistent, until further notice"?

I’m not asking you if you think they are stories. I’m asking you where you think that another understanding of X is necessary other than panentheism. Is it because you are taking the stories in the OT literal or because you don’t understand anything about Jesus personifying the Logos? Why do you feel it is necessary to employ an understanding of X other than the one provided by Justin?

His definition failed to make any testable predictions.

Test for it? Something, for some reason, we can’t come up with language for? Think of all the difficulty there is going on in proving dark matter and that is something that is in theory in flux.

The effects of dark matter can be observed, and testable predictions made.

Imagine if it was truly constant; how would you test for it? As the video pointed out Einstein was wrong about proving the curve of space by matter, so it’s possible there could be a test in the future but it is hard to imagine that being the case.

You are the one positing its existence.

What does it mean for a universe to not require a first cause? Does it mean that the universe goes back infinitely or somehow breaks the chain of cause and effect back to the beginning in some unusual way that I can’t imagine?

1) you think this deity of yours can do it and 2) cause and effect break down under certain conditions, such as at the quantum level.

Does this mean you do or don’t recognize that the definition that Justin provided was the understanding of X that the early Christian writers were working with?

I find the podcasts of Robert M. Price to be fascinating, but I would not feel qualified to comment. Your question is vague, as in what do you mean by 'early' and what specific writings are you referring to.

You can joke but I’ve never met an atheist/skeptic who didn’t have a completely absurd understanding of X that comes from taking the Bible literally.

Actually, I have avoided the bible for the most part. I have limited reading time available, and wouldn't know which version to start with, and just how in heck to you decide on what to take literally and what not to? So I try not to go there at the moment.

If you want to see completely absurd understandings of God all you need to do is follow my other posts on this board.

Maybe you could answer this one? Did the water from the Flood go to Mars, or to Neptune?

 

[ElijahW]

I said before the beginning of time. What words do you use to describe when when there is no time?

The beginning of everything. There is no “before” the beginning of time so I don’t know what you are referring to exactly. I still would like to know why you think that there is some kind of limit on the ability to discuss before the big bang?

It appears to me that panentheism presumes the existence of a deity.

Dodging defining X again.

Then do your homework.Wiki

You are correct. I glanced at the wiki when you first mentioned the word but I should have looked more into it. I’m actually thinking that word may get some play from me in the future so thanks!

What do you think they mean by “In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.”? By “term” do they mean label?

What is the next step after this?

“As god means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead.”

Once you realize that it isn’t a child’s definition but instead a philosopher/theologian, what do you do next?

Then why not dismiss this deity as "nonexistent, until further notice"?

Dismiss it? You mean go with the universe being around an infinite amount of years? That’s the only other option you realize, right? The question isn’t between if X exists or not. The question is did the universe have a beginning or not.

His definition failed to make any testable predictions.

So what? His definition identified what was in discussion AND the nature of the understanding he was working with.

Does your belief system mean you have to define words with definitions that can be proven with physical tests? Is this something that you are picking up from Sam Harris? Does he do this as well or is he capable of defining the term X.

The effects of dark matter can be observed, and testable predictions made.

from wiki: As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive”

You are the one positing its existence.

So you can’t think of any possible testable attribute? You just like to ask the question to try to prove the point?

1) you think this deity of yours can do it and

Where have I said that or why do you assume it?

2) cause and effect break down under certain conditions, such as at the quantum level.

A link please to what the evidence is or reasoning behind this thinking.

I find the podcasts of Robert M. Price to be fascinating, but I would not feel qualified to comment. Your question is vague, as in what do you mean by 'early' and what specific writings are you referring to.

If you know of any example from the time period that you think gives a different understanding of X then let me know. If you don’t then the question is why you are so reluctant to go with the panentheistic understanding of Christianity? Have you just held onto the assumption they were all worshiping a sky genie back then for so long that you can’t let go?

Actually, I have avoided the bible for the most part. I have limited reading time available, and wouldn't know which version to start with, and just how in heck to you decide on what to take literally and what not to? So I try not to go there at the moment.

So you don’t know what is going on in the bible at all?

If you want to see completely absurd understandings of God all you need to do is follow my other posts on this board.
Maybe you could answer this one? Did the water from the Flood go to Mars, or to Neptune?

You tend to get what you go looking for. Like if you go looking to argue literal flood stuff, you are going to end up debating people who believe in a literal flood.

 

[Davian]

The beginning of everything. There is no “before” the beginning of time so I don’t know what you are referring to exactly. I still would like to know why you think that there is some kind of limit on the ability to discuss before the big bang?

If testable hypotheses cannot be developed to explore what happened 'before' the big bang, we may as well be discussing... theology.

Dodging defining X again.

I merely step to the side when you attempt to shift the burden of evidence to me. You are positing the existence of this critter, you define it.

You are correct. I glanced at the wiki when you first mentioned the word but I should have looked more into it. I’m actually thinking that word may get some play from me in the future so thanks!

You're welcome. I've never been a believer, so labeling my self as a non-believer or atheist never fit, until I came across the 'ignostic' modifier.

What do you think they mean by “In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.”? By “term” do they mean label?

I think it is context sensitive. for an object, it would be 'object'. Concept of an apple, or the apple.
What about consciousness? Most of us can muster up some concept of consciousness, but it can get messy when we try to define the term. (did you see my post on that subject?)

What is the next step after this?
“As god means very different things to different people, when the word is spoken, an ignostic may seek to determine if something like a child's definition of a god is meant or if a theologian's is intended instead.”

Once you realize that it isn’t a child’s definition but instead a philosopher/theologian, what do you do next?

To paraphrase Wiki, you are required to present a coherent and falsifiable definition before we can proceed further.

Dismiss it? You mean go with the universe being around an infinite amount of years? That’s the only other option you realize, right? The question isn’t between if X exists or not. The question is did the universe have a beginning or not.

There is always the option of saying 'we don't know".

The absence of a scientific explanation does not support the existence of a deity.

or X.

or God.

So what? His definition identified what was in discussion AND the nature of the understanding he was working with.

Agreed. And presupposed the existence of a deity. You keep glossing over that step.

Does your belief system mean you have to define words with definitions that can be proven with physical tests?

or observation, or inference.

Repeatable, reproducible.

Science.

"Science is the worst form of inquiry into reality, except all the others that have been tried." - unknown

Is this something that you are picking up from Sam Harris? Does he do this as well or is he capable of defining the term X.

I am not familiar with Sam Harris, other than by name.

from wiki: As important as dark matter is believed to be in the cosmos, direct evidence of its existence and a concrete understanding of its nature have remained elusive”

I agree with that.

So you can’t think of any possible testable attribute? You just like to ask the question to try to prove the point?

I ask the question because that is how science works.

The burden of evidence rests with you.

Where have I said that or why do you assume it?

You said: "That is your job to do with the universe; not mine to do with the concept of God. No one is arguing that God has been around an infinite amount of years, just since the beginning."
Actually, it is your job with regards to God. you are making the claim that it was around since the beginning.

A link please to what the evidence is or reasoning behind this thinking.

I am not making the claim that a quantum level effect initiated the universe, but it has not been eliminated as a possibility.

See the previous video, @ 33min10sec

It is also a more parsimonious answer that invoking a deity.

Also, for interests sake:

YouTube - ‪Daniel Dennett on William Lane Craig‬‏

If you know of any example from the time period that you think gives a different understanding of X then let me know. If you don’t then the question is why you are so reluctant to go with the panentheistic understanding of Christianity? Have you just held onto the assumption they were all worshiping a sky genie back then for so long that you can’t let go?

I think you are projecting. Until recently, I was quite apathetic towards religion. I even married a Christian girl, as I didn't think it mattered, as long I only had to attend few times per year.

So you don’t know what is going on in the bible at all?

Not really, other than the common bible stories. Also circular logic makes me dizzy - God directed the writing of the Bible, therefore the Bible is true,
therefore God exists and directed the writing of the Bible.

Were you wanting to provide evidence for authenticating the bible? Perhaps that could be a new thread.

You tend to get what you go looking for. Like if you go looking to argue literal flood stuff, you are going to end up debating people who believe in a literal flood.

It is immensely entertaining. I don't see you in there setting them straight.

I don't want to get into how to cherry pick the bible to support certain arguments.

And maybe God is just a character in a book.

 

[ElijahW]

If testable hypotheses cannot be developed to explore what happened 'before' the big bang, we may as well be discussing... theology.

Or may as well be discussing metaphysical cosmology… which we are.

I merely step to the side when you attempt to shift the burden of evidence to me. You are positing the existence of this critter, you define it.

I’m not shifting the burden I’m asking you to explain your use of words.

The whole “burden” thing is atheist shtick trying to act like if you can’t prove X physically then it is reasonable to think X doesn’t exist.

You're welcome. I've never been a believer, so labeling my self as a non-believer or atheist never fit, until I came across the 'ignostic' modifier.

It’s nice. If that word could get popular and people realized there was a child’s understanding and also a philosophical understanding of X, it could really raise the level of conversation. That has been an extremely difficult point to get across for me.

I think it is context sensitive. for an object, it would be 'object'. Concept of an apple, or the apple.
What about consciousness? Most of us can muster up some concept of consciousness, but it can get messy when we try to define the term. (did you see my post on that subject?)

So if you can’t understand something in a physical way then understanding it isn’t possible? And if understanding it isn’t possible then defining it isn’t possible, making the word meaningless?

To paraphrase Wiki, you are required to present a coherent and falsifiable definition before we can proceed further.

So you are rigging the conversation to only talk about physical concepts. Any metaphysical discussion is disregarded without reason.

There is always the option of saying 'we don't know".
The absence of a scientific explanation does not support the existence of a deity.

or X.

or God.

Of course you don’t know. You believe. You have faith. That faith can be based on trusting in what you have been told or it can be based in reason.

Reason supports the existence of X. Because reason can’t explain a universe that has been around for an infinite amount of time. Which would be what I would be required to believe if I didn’t believe in X.

Either you believe in X, or you believe in the universe being around an infinite amount of time. Or you just don’t know because you haven’t thought about it enough to develop an opinion on what you consider the most reasonable.

Agreed. And presupposed the existence of a deity. You keep glossing over that step.

? Aren’t we defining X, which you are calling a “deity”? Is there a way to define a “deity” without supposing its existence?

or observation, or inference.

Repeatable, reproducible.

Science.

"Science is the worst form of inquiry into reality, except all the others that have been tried." – unknown

And when the conversation isn’t about repeatable or observable concepts, I assume you go to inference right? Or did you somehow infer that the physical was all that there was?

What do you infer about the beginning of the universe being finite or infinite?

I ask the question because that is how science works.

The burden of evidence rests with you.

There is no burden of proof on either of us. That is just a game for people who don’t’ understand what the conversation is about. There is a burden on you to explain what you do believe, if you don’t believe in a universe with a beginning or a beginning that is constant.

Don’t worry I’m not going to tit-for-tat you with the burden stuff. I would just like you to try and explain the alternative and see where reason takes us from there.

Actually, it is your job with regards to God. you are making the claim that it was around since the beginning.

Beginning is the key word here. You are arguing there is no beginning and the universe goes back infinitely. You aren’t explaining why you think this or how it is possible and when trying to support this thinking with a video, you provided one with the person supporting my position.

I am not making the claim that a quantum level effect initiated the universe, but it has not been eliminated as a possibility

See the previous video, @ 33min10sec

It is also a more parsimonious answer that invoking a deity.

Are you suggesting that cause and effect does not go back to the beginning of the universe/cosmos or not? That video doesn’t address that issue. The speaker is speaking about a child’s understanding of X. He is either doing your idea of disregarding the philosophers understanding of God or just isn’t familiar enough with it to discuss it.

Also, for interests sake:

Just because it’s relative to the conversation or was there something that you thought supported a point of yours?

I think you are projecting. Until recently, I was quite apathetic towards religion. I even married a Christian girl, as I didn't think it mattered, as long I only had to attend few times per year.

Maybe you are right because if you are truly a ignostic and can differentiate between a child’s understanding and a philosopher’s, then you are further along in the conversation then I thought. I just haven’t seen anything that you’ve said to make me think you are familiar with the conversation because you keep asking for physical proof of things that aren’t physical.

 

[Davian]

Aren’t we defining X, which you are calling a “deity”? Is there a way to define a “deity” without supposing its existence?

Are we talking about the character "God" in the Christian bible? Or is this a different 'god' you are positing?

 

[ElijahW]

Are we talking about the character "God" in the Christian bible? Or is this a different 'god' you are positing?

If you have a different understanding of X other than the one presented by Justin, early in the conversation, then present it. You have been asked over and over again to supply your understanding of the word X so we can address it but you have failed to do so.

Were you going to respond to how you infer your understanding of the universe and its lack of a beginning or are you still thinking that asking for proof is the way to go?

 

[sandwiches]

Is there a way to define a “deity” without supposing its existence?

Isn't there a way to define a “leprechaun” without supposing its existence?

 

[Davian]

Are we talking about the character "God" in the Christian bible? Or is this a different 'god' you are positing?

If you have a different understanding of X other than the one presented by Justin, early in the conversation, then present it. You have been asked over and over again to supply your understanding of the word X so we can address it but you have failed to do so.

from wiki:
X ( /ɛks/; named ex, plural exes) is the twenty-fourth letter in the basic modern Latin alphabet.

Were you going to respond to how you infer your understanding of the universe and its lack of a beginning or are you still thinking that asking for proof is the way to go?

No.

 

[ElijahW]

Isn't there a way to define a “leprechaun” without supposing its existence?

I'm not sure. I'm confused by what he is hoping for in a definition.

Leprechaun: a mischievous elf of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught

Does that suppose its existence?

 

[ElijahW]

No.

Ok then, it's a good time to call it.

If you ever get curious about understanding the concepts of God rationally or Christianity and I miss that thread, feel free to send me a PM and maybe we can continue the conversation at a later date.

It's been fun chatting and thanks for the new word.

 

[Davian]

Ok then, it's a good time to call it.

If you ever get curious about understanding the concepts of God rationally or Christianity and I miss that thread, feel free to send me a PM and maybe we can continue the conversation at a later date.

It's been fun chatting and thanks for the new word.

Agreed - it was fun, but time for a break.

 

[sandwiches]

I'm not sure. I'm confused by what he is hoping for in a definition.

Leprechaun: a mischievous elf of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught

Does that suppose its existence?

Doesn't seem like it. So, in the same way, isn't there a way to define what you mean by 'god' without supposing its existence?

Edit: I used to miss the point of why people insisted on defining 'god' before answering, until I realized that people call 'god' anything from whatever created the universe to the universe itself. So, if you define 'god' as the universe, then I do believe what you call 'god' exists. If you define it as an omnimax being who punishes and rewards people for their behavior and beliefs, then no I do not think that such a god exists.

 

[ElijahW]

Doesn't seem like it. So, in the same way, isn't there a way to define what you mean by 'god' without supposing its existence?

Edit: I used to miss the point of why people insisted on defining 'god' before answering, until I realized that people call 'god' anything from whatever created the universe to the universe itself. So, if you define 'god' as the universe, then I do believe what you call 'god' exists. If you define it as an omnimax being who punishes and rewards people for their behavior and beliefs, then no I do not think that such a god exists.

God: the creator of the universe.

That definition or Justin's definition presupposes but, "Leprechaun: a mischievous elf of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught." doesn't? I don't understand.

Can you give an example that you think would be acceptable?

A panentheistic understanding of God is what was under discussion. Anthropomorphic understandings of God, as a guy in the sky who gets mad wasn't, even though I'm not sure how many people in the discussion realized that.

 

[sandwiches]

God: the creator of the universe.

That definition or Justin's definition presupposes but, "Leprechaun: a mischievous elf of Irish folklore usually believed to reveal the hiding place of treasure if caught." doesn't? I don't understand.

I hate to say this, but I have no earthly idea what you mean by "presupposes," then, since giving a definition of a unicorn: "A horse with a horn on its head," doesn't presuppose its existence in any way.

Can you give an example that you think would be acceptable?

I don't understand what you mean here, either. Are you asking what an acceptable definition of "god" or "God" would be? I don't care which definition you use. I just need to know so I can be sure we're talking about the same thing and not just talking past each other.

A panentheistic understanding of God is what was under discussion. Anthropomorphic understandings of God, as a guy in the sky who gets mad wasn't, even though I'm not sure how many people in the discussion realized that.

Actually this latest problem started because you don't accept his definition of God with a capital "g" when he said it's a character in a book. It's like if you asked who Batman is and he tells you "A character in a series of comics." You then say, "That's not Batman. That's a representation of the real Batman."